Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter matafagafo (1343219) writes with this news, straight from the Mozilla blog, which comes in the wake of controversy over Brendan Eich's polticial views (in particular, his support for California's Proposition 8, which would have reversed a decision legalizing same-sex marriage within the state). and how they would reflect on the organization : "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard ..."

I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.

What about my freedom of speech to not donate to an organization headed by someone with whom I disagree?

What about the freedom of hundreds of employees to feel uncomfortable working for someone who is advocating against you? What about the freedom of workers to quit and find new companies where they are more welcome?

Freedom goes both ways. In this instance it's one CEO or thousands of users and employees.

If they're uncomfortable, they're being childish. For one thing, diversity means being around people who disagree with you. And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head. He donated $1,000 to a Prop 8 fund. Maybe the guy is a Mormon. I dunno.

What if he was a communist party member? Shouldn't the 100s of millions of deaths directly attributable to the rise of communist party rule be a little more cause for concern then whether states should accept homosexual marriages? Of course not... that would require some rational thought and reflection. Or, maybe, I dunno... supporting a political party or campaign doesn't mean your motives are nefarious and harmful (even though their effect might cause harm in actuality).

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

I've actually proposed a solution that addresses that. Overhaul the government laws so that all "marriage" benefits are now tied to civil unions, leaving the term "marriage" reserved for purely ceremonial (religious) use. This neatly eliminates the conflict between religious definitions of marriage and government benefits tied to marriage (or lack thereof for gay couples). The benefits would be tied to civil unions instead.

Every pro-gay marriage friend I suggested this to rejected it. The only acceptable solution to them was to strip the concept of marriage entirely from any religious influence, and hand complete control of it over it to those with modern secular viewpoints. I protested that this could create a conflict wherein a church could be sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to use the church for a wedding. They had no problem with this. i.e. Their stance is based on attributing no value to any religious viewpoint - they do not believe in freedom of religion.

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.

Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.

So yes it is like he's a skin-head.

Conservatives think liberals are inferior and bad for society.
Liberals think conservatives are inferior and bad for society.
Religio-phobes think religious people are inferior and bad for society.
People like you think skin-heads are inferior and bad for society.

So by your reasoning, pretty much everyone is like a skin-head; including yourself.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay.

Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

Didn't realize the legitimacy of my marriage was contingent on whether or not my wife and I decide to reproduce.

Oh, right, it's not. Marriage is quite obviously a business contract, once you put emotion aside.

Wait, so you think couples that are sterile or very old shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

If you disagree with that statement, you're actually just an asshole, you're not a libertarian. Marriage is a social construct that has very little to do with raising children in this day and age. I'm married, and we have no plans to have children ever. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I agree that the government should have no say in who I have a relationship with, but as long as they do, they're obligated to apply their rules fairly across all groups of people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.

It was against the self-contradicting phenomenon called "gay marriage".

gay marriage is only 'self-contradicting' if marriage is defined as not involving same sex unions, marriage is a human invention, it does not arise from the facts of physics, chemistry, biology or any other natural process, neither does it arise from basic philosophical or ethical thought. a society is free to define 'marriage' how it likes. prop 8 was an argument about definitions, just because the proponents (not all though) claimed that god was on their side and that therefore 'marriage' was somehow akin to a physical property of the universe does not make it so.

there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

So then a heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children, either because the couple is medically unable to or doesn't want to, should be treated equally to gay marriage, right? And therefore, if a non-child-producing heterosexual marriage is legal, then a gay marriage should be legal too, right?

Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so — even those, who (like ancient Athens) were perfectly tolerant of homosexuality.

So what? You're saying that our culture should be just like historical cultures? We should have slavery? There should be no equal rights for women? It should be perfectly legal and acceptable to beat our children or wives bloody for misbehaving? We should be imprisoned for speaking out against the government? Also, there are plenty of things that apply to historical cultures that don't apply today. The most important in this case being population numbers. Back then, more people died from things like disease and war, so the members of that population had as many kids as they could in order to keep up their population numbers to grow their culture and prevent their culture from being wiped out (this can be seen in modern times by the growth of Mormonism). This doesn't apply to today, when our problem is overpopulation, not underpopulation.

This is wrong in so many ways. We have always recognized at least some marriages which we knew perfectly well would never produce children, because children are only part of the point of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create family relationships. That's useful for kids, but it's also beneficial to lots of other people. Furthermore, there have been plenty of places recognizing marriages between same-sex couples for years, and even if there weren't, so what? We are allowed to do new things if we think they're useful.

Mostly, it comes down to: No one is going to believe your feeble excuses, because we all know perfectly well that the people who don't think gays should be able to get married always just sort of happen to have a very noticeable personal hostility thing happening, even if they hide it somewhat, and that the arguments for that position are long-dead. The point at which several of the major former proponents of the position walked away because they realized that it was stupid and indefensible and motivated mostly by hatred was the point at which it stopped being a credible position to take.

Mostly, though, I think your analysis sucks because you're not considering the many non-child-related functions of having an institution for the creation of family ties.

There is also no reason to assume that the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children. Also, marriages don't produce children. The biology of producing children is in no way dependent on the institution of marriage. Gay people are also perfectly capable of producing children and many do.

I also share your view that marriage should be completely separate from government. Marriage even in the legal sense entails a lot of things involving inheritance, hospital visits, power of attorney, alimony, taxes, etc. All of this stuff applies just as well to same sex couples. It doesn't really have anything to do with children. (which same sex couples can also have). There is no law forcing people to get married if they have kids. There is no law forcing married people to have kids.

And there is a very good reason to use the same legal construct (i.e. calling both same sex and heterosexual unions, marriages), because despite the claims, civil unions (which each state defines it's own way, if at all) do not confer the same rights as marriage. In the same way that separate but equal laws lead to anything but equality in the south during segregation, separate legal definitions for civil unions for gay people and marriages for straight people, leaves the door wide open for differences in the rights offered by these 2 institutions.

I don't care if certain churches refuse to consider gay marriages legitimate. I would actually prefer if marriage was removed from government influence altogether. But what we can't have is the government offering a right to one group of people and not another.

His freedom of speech wasn't taken away. He can still say what he wants and contributes to the causes he wants. It is a matter of other people exercising their freedom to do the same and choose a browser for any reason they prefer.

I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

In a way, this is no different than being fired for making embarrassing statements on Twitter. You have your right to speak your mind, what you don't have the right to do is force the rest of the world to ignore what you've said.

I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

If someone that worked at a local business had the opinion that smoking should be banned would it be okay to try to force that company to fire them with your more populous opinion? How about if a local business employee thought that blacks should be able to drink at the same water fountain but the local community didn't like that idea so got the person fired?

I will not agree with the use of underhanded and immoral tactics just to get my way. It is wrong when others do it and it is still wrong even if the power dynamic has shifted and put you in the driver's seat. Bigotry cannot be fought that way.

you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott

This is so utterly false, I don’t even know where to start. Eich had every right to speak in support of Prop 8 or anything else he might like to, but I also have the right to express my distaste of his bigoted ideas by withholding my support of any organization which he runs.

I’ll defend to the death his right to *say* whatever he likes, but there’s no reason in the world I need to do business with someone whose views I consider to make them a reprehensible human being. The idea that not giving someone your money is equivalent to silencing their right to free speech strikes me as an incredible sense of entitlement. There’s nothing about the right to free speech that entitles you to say anything you want without consequences of having said it. Freedom of speech means the government can’t silence you, but that protection begins and ends with the *government*. How any individual chooses to interact with you as a result of *your* free speech is as much a matter of *their* free speech as you being free to say it in the first place.

There’s nothing about supporting free speech that requires me to also support every person who speaks an opinion I disagree with. By your logic, I should vote for a politician whose views I disagree with because if I voted against him, I’d be infringing on his right to free speech. That’s preposterous and misguided and flat out foolish.

This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views...

Odd, I thought being a CEO made you an employer, you know, one of those "job creators".

By the way - one point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

It's not a dangerous road, it's how societies operate. As a matter of fact, it's the only way to actually build a society. Anything short of that is just pie-in-the-sky anarchism. As for your reverse example, that is exactly what's taking place in the US right now. They're free to do that, and I'm free to organize a counter boycott.

The alternative that you propose either requires an incredible restriction on speech and action, or requires a complete lack of interaction between any individuals. One is terrible, the other untenable.

as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

And yet, he has not had the opportunity to do any of these things before he was forced out. In fact, he's stated that nothing would change about Mozilla's stance towards the LGBT community and its issues. Yet he was judged not by his ability nor his performance, but by his beliefs. How is that not being bigoted?

A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

It has nothing to do with where you work. The First Amendment only defends one from government punishing your speech. You can still boycott — and be boycotted — by non-governmental enterprises and individuals. Indeed, when the Amendment was written, the percentage of people working for private sector was much higher than today.

I am disgusted with the Illiberals' persecution of the supporters of the Prop 8, but I don't deny their right to do it... I do wish, the actual Liberals were as effective, though... Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?

If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

That's all the Freedom of Speech covers in the Constitution -- against the government denying it (and only in America and a handful of other countries with similar protections to boot). It doesn't apply to all other (private) situations, legally.

Freedom of speech protects you from punishment by the government for your speech.

If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

This is just false. The fact that you can be fired for saying something stupid, does not in any way diminish the fact that you can not be imprisoned for saying something stupid.

Actually peer pressure is one of the ways that persecution stops. This is a classic example of peer pressure punishing someone for engaging in persecution of a minority. This is not analogous to having a disagreement about a matter of fact. This is a case where someone deliberately took action to make sure that someone he doesn't like wouldn't have the same rights he has.

So while I think the basic point you are making has some validity, the problem is that while I would not shun Brendan for actively supporting proposition 8, any more than I would shun someone who opposed freeing the slaves, it would definitely color my attitude toward that person, and the contexts in which I would trust that person to speak on my behalf.

The nature of leadership roles, such as CEO, is that the leader is not being hired solely for their ability to do a particular set of tasks. They are being hired to lead the organization. So a CEO who is willing to take away from others rights that he keeps for himself is simply not someone I'd want to work for. How do I know he's not going to do the same to me? And an organization looking for a CEO ought to be concerned about the direction in which that CEO would lead the organization.

So I shouldn't have the freedom of speech to denounce those who take actions I disagree with?

That is the question here. Whether the people had the right to complain about the actions of another. Anything else is a distraction to the issue. It isn't about gay rights, or human rights, just free speech and nothing but.

Do I have the right to complain about someone who took an action I didn't like? The "pro-free speech" crowd claims no, and the "anti-free speech" crowd says yes.

You mean like how the right wingers boycotts TV/radio shows/movies and threaten sponsors when something is done that they don't like? What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

Want to really compare the numbers between the right wingers and left wingers on the issue? You'll find that the numbers are skewed left wing very quickly. You'll also find very quickly that government running as a handler for groups in the last 5 years with the help of organizations such as OFA and MM to boycott things has reached a fevered pitch. Toss in the "if you don't support it, you're a racist" I'm sure we can agree that it's all the same right?

Never mind either that we still haven't gotten to the bottom to the GP's post about the IRS directly targeting conservative groups. And that Lerner's probably going to end up in prison over it to protect whatever political master she's serving higher up in the chain. 5th not applying in her case.

Oh, for god's sake, don't you get it? All opinions are equally meaningless unless people actually react to them. The ultimate non-existence of freedom of speech would be a society, where speech and actions have no consequences. This time, the consequence of his actions was that the public saw him as unfit for CEO of Mozilla. No one has denied him the right to hold those views, and he has been very kindly offered [cnet.com] a platform to express them. What you should take away from this, is that your political opinions are often of little importance when you are just another employee, but once you become the CEO, who is a public figure, you can expect heat from those who disagree with your opinions. Which you have an absolute right to. Just like those who disagree with you.

People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.

Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.

Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"

This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?

No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it,

Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?

Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.

Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support.It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it.

Now, as consumers of a product, it is our right to not use/buy the product to not financially support acts that go against our beliefs and moral stances (just like we choose to buy organic, or buy american, or buy fair trade, etc.)

You are right, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. However, I'd argue that there is a difference between spouting a view in a public forum and supporting a cause through what should be an anonymous donation. Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat? What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage? It cuts both ways remember.

He and mozilla made a business decision. It didn't matter what his feelings were on the topic; all that mattered was what it would do to the organization and its mission. While I will defend to the death anyone's right to say what they want regardless of if I agree with them I definitely do not blame Eich for it. I blame OkCupid and others instead.

no one in modern times (in a western world) would think its ok to underpay women just because they are women. no one would think its ok to pay less based on skin color. why is it 'just another way to think' when its about giving (or more accurately, denying) equal rights to same-sex couples?

its wrong to deny people basic rights based entirely on religion,.

I feel happy that people have pushed such a backward thinking person out of a position of high power. good for mankind! yay! there's still some hope for us, yet.

Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

They didn't think someone that contributed to something that they considered anti-human rights should be the head of an open source organization and they voted with their feet. They didn't go to a legislature and say that Eich and all the other people that gave to this cause should have rights taken away. That's what the anti-gay factions are doing at the moment as they keep losing ground on this issue.

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done

Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.

and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.

I would have said "Mr. X is wrong in his view, but his company makes a mighty fine browser."
Now if Mozilla had started using HP webcams for facial recognition [slashdot.org] to determine who can and can't use Firefox, then I'd change my tune about whether the company's product should be boycotted.

Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.

So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

When?

*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.

*If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.

If someone said that in Alabama in 1957, would it be justified to deny them employment for the rest of their life even if they changed their mind after the Civil Rights Act passed?

Publicly acceptable positions on gay marriage are changing quickly. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Clinton signed, a bill (DOMA) banning recognition of gay marriage across state lines. 10 years after that, few Democratic politicians, at least outside the most conservative states, would defend that position. But views changed slowly. In 2004, when running for the Senate, Barack Obama said that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. He said in 2010 that his views were "evolving", and at that point said he supported civil unions. Shortly afterward he came down on the side of supporting gay marriage without reservations.

The point is that this is an issue on which decent, well-meaning people have disagreed. To the extent that there is a majority consensus, it has only formed recently. Going back and retroactively persecuting people for their views before the consensus formed seems grossly unfair.

His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.

Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.

Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.

If he'd said any of that at work, you'd have a point. But think of the precedent here. Do you want your employer monitoring your political views outside of work and firing you if they think one of your opinions could prove embarassing to the company in the future?

I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit.

So where do you draw the line?

Lets just Godwin it right off the bat and get it over with; if he were openly a Nazi, funding white supremacy, attacking the jews and blacks right to own property etc... everyone at Mozilla should just show up to work because its no business of theirs what their boss does off the clock? All Mozilla's customers should just keep using the software, because its no business of theirs?

The reality is that what he stands for offended a lot of people.

The CEO is the face of the company.

If you are seriously disappointed that it culminated in people non-violently making it heard that they did not wish to work for this guy, or support a company this guy was the head of then I have to say I'm disappointed in YOU.

I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.

I am straight (though I'm not sure that sexual orientation really matters since it's a matter of supporting human rights -- I could be against homosexuality yet still support homosexual marriage) and I think that if you don't believe in someone's views (especially a public figure like the CEO of a well known organization), you definitely should speak out against his views and not support his product.

Everyone should have the right to support whatever cause they want to support, just like everyone should have the right to *not* support that cause or the people that support it or even outright protest it. Some supporters of gay marriage have also faced outrage and boycotts [huffingtonpost.com], so why should opponents of gay marriage not expect the same? Or should we all just keep quiet when some cause offends us?

If he had fired a bunch of LGBT-supporting employees at Mozilla, or defunded the LGBT club (if they have one) there, that would be crossing the line between personal and professional. Only then would all this outrage be justified.

Did he do anything like this during his short tenure? I certainly haven't heard.

"He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people. So it's more then just an opinion."

You don't know what rights are. Marriage, and the governmental advantages associated with it (such as lower tax rates), is a privilege. Whether hetero or homo, there is no "right" for anyone to get married, or to have the state recognize that marriage.

Furthermore, he was supporting his own opinion, which was not only with the side of the majority, but was related to a right we do have, the right to vote. Would you support firing the over 50% of California voters who supported Prop 8? (That's rhetorical - of course you would, you've shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot)

Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.

If that was the only thing communism was then communism would be great. Who wouldn't want an equal share of everything.Actually communism is pretty great at the local level where you can kick someone out or they are free to leave.Communism/Socialism doesn't scale though as at the national level there is no non-violent way to handle freeloadersor people who cheat the system so you eventually end up with a bunch of rich people at the top taking advantage ofthe system and a bunch of lazy people at the bottom taking advantage of the system.

How does this tripe get insightful? NO ONE IS PROSECUTING this man. He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.

He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.

I think it's a witchhunt when someone is fired from a job for having an opinion that roughly 50% of the population has.Regardless of which side you are on, gay marriage it is very much still a debatable issue. There is a reason that itbarely fails to pass in one area and then barely passes in another area only to be appealed and then appealed again.The national jury is still trying to decide. It seems wrong to fire someone for having an opinion when the collectivewhole is still trying to decide. Why should he be fired when approximately half of firefox's user base agrees with him?

No, a witch-hunt would be if we didn't like him, and so we lied about what he said or set up an attack where loses his job if he did what we said, or if he didn't.

Roughly 50% of the population do blurt out offensive things that would negatively affect their career if they were a public figure. That is no surprise.

Probably well over 50% of the population blurts out idiotic nonsense that would get them fired if they were an engineer, too. Obviously a different set of idiotic nonsense, granted. But the average person does not have the skills or experience to be an engineer. Or a CEO. Part of being a CEO is to be the face of the organization. If you do anything that is high profile enough to be noticed by the public, that reflects on the organization. That is just part of being the public face of an organization.

Personally, I would never take that sort of job because I value privacy over money. But these are the sort of decisions a person makes in life.

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

What you say might be true, but then he was with Mozilla, in a top ranking position long before now. Why wasn't their a public outcry back when Prop 8 passed?

And he didn't give money to a campaign to remove rights from anybody. He gave money to a campaign that basically defined marriage as between one mand and one woman. Over half the people in CA agreed with that. What's next, we are taking rights away from certain Morman groups, because gay or straight, they can't be married to more than one person?

For a group that states that they promote tolerance, they seem to be pretty intolerant. It's not tolerance if the requirement is you have to agree only with their position.

Unlike him, I haven't contributed to any organisations that seek to remove anyone's rights, and certainly not HIS rights.

I don't have to support him or any company that he's the head of. He can have his opinions, but I'm not obligated to think Mozilla is wonderful no matter what.

There's a big difference between holding an opinion and trying to have your opinion written into law. I'm sure there are homophobes and bigots working at the company that I'm at. (In fact, I practically guarantee it.)

I don't think that people that hold those views should be in positions of authority. It gives the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the company tacitly supports his beliefs.

How many non-CEOs have you seen fired from their jobs because they've done something publicly embarrassing to the company that they work for? I don't see how a CEO should be above that. He's a lightning-rod for criticism (criticism that I think he deserves) and it's a distraction to the goals of Mozilla. Additionally, the LGBT people that work there are reportedly uncomfortable with someone like that heading the company, and I think it should be understandable why. His donation indicates that he thinks those people are second-class citizens--that they don't deserve the same full spectrum of rights that he does.

This is no different from someone donating to anti-civil-rights measures leading a company. I don't see why it's such a stretch to hold racists and homophobes to account for their opinions and actions. They're untenable positions and I won't support them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's humanity's greatest monster, or that he's sub-human. I just don't think you should be able to walk around with abhorrent views like that and expect everyone to still venerate you as a great person.

He holds a very popular, mainstream view. You support firing people who have very popular, mainstream views that you disagree with. I think that's fucked up.

There should not be personal consequences for standing on one side or another of mainstream political debates. Gay marriage, abortion, there are always issues that people are quite passionate about. If you lose the election, you don't get your way and that's the price of democracy - and it's a good trade-off. But if we target individuals for persecution, we lose democracy.

How can he file a defamation lawsuit? The thing that OKCupid said WASN'T A LIE.

Defamation requires a FALSE statement. He donated the money. It's HIS FAULT that he's a homophobe that wants to deny other people's rights. He didn't apologise for past behaviour, or seek to remedy it.

His opinion is his own, but he tried to have his opinion written into law, which isn't okay with me when it runs contrary to fundamental human rights. You can't deny a segment of the population rights and privileges just because they were born a certain way.

He can't win shit. He has no business feeling angry at anyone other than himself.

Unless US law is different then I'm aware of (and a quick bit of research suggests it is not) defamation (liable or slander) lawsuits require saying/writing something that is false. Here's the OKCupid statement:

Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today. This is why: we've devoted the last ten years to bringing peopleâ"all peopleâ"together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:"

It seems to me that the statement consists of statements that in for far as the public record is concerned, are true. E.g. "Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.", which is supported by the contribution that started this all; the rest of it appears to be statements that either relate to feelings of OK Cupid, or clearly deliminated opinions. IANAL, but I do spend a lot of time talking to them professionally, and I think it would actually be a very weak case for liable (which is what this would be, slander refers to the spoken word, liable to the written one).

You are welcome to opinions on how OKCupid handled this, but I think the argument that it's legally actionable is probably incorrect.

In brief, in order to be defamatory, a statement must be:

1) Public (e.g. someone had to have heard it other then the two parties)2) False3) Not an opinion4) Damaging(there's a couple of other items that have no baring in this case)

I think anyone reasonable could agree on 1 and 4, but 2 & 3 have larger hurdles.

Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.

Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).

you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.

I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

Chick-fil-a's CEO, Dan Cathy, may actually disagree with you. Not long ago, he openly apologized for his comments about gay marriage and his donations to many of the apparent hate groups have declined or all together stopped. He cited many reasons for his change of heart, but the most telling was that "it was bad for business." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US... [upi.com]

I remember reading at the time (although I can't find the source anymore) that while sales spiked during the initial publicity, they later declined to a point lower than before the controversy started. So they didn't really get any new customers from the whole thing, just lots of people who were already Chick-fil-a customers going out and making a statement. Once the controversy died down, existing customers went back to their old purchasing habits. However, they did lose customers. Those who used to be customers and were offended by the comments, will likely never be customers again.

A company needs to succeed based on the product that they are offering, whether its differentiating qualities are real or perceived. Anything else is simply a distraction. This goes for chicken and web browsers. The views of the CEO shouldn't be a consideration for customers when choosing a web browser.

I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round. I've never met the guy and don't know much about him but it seems like he was harpooned for personal beliefs (that clearly match up with many other people based on the vote). Are we really this much against differing viewpoints? Against religious freedom?

It's not that simple. Marriage is not a right. For anyone. It's a social construct. You can't engage in the "active suppression of other people's rights" when there is no right involved.

I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments, but booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness." It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.

Whether this is philosophically true or not, it's true in the context of the US legal system. I think it's a fundamental human right to associate with and make a family with whomever you please. If the government provides benefits, privileges and rights associated with marriage, it's a right to receive those, regardless of who you chose to marry.

Okay, I'm trying to summarize all of the events and make some sense out of it.
In 2008, Eich gives $1,000 for support of Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8, as did 48% of the other Californians who voted that day (remember the measure passed). To my knowledge, he has said nothing otherwise and apparently did not interfere with apparently LGBT friendly policies of the Mozilla Corporation.
In 2012, his donation was leaked somehow, and it causes headlines to flare. Two years ago.
Late March 2014, the Mozilla board selects him as the CEO (he obviously is qualified for the job based on experience), full well knowing about his donation and the internal opposition.
In April 2014, virtual blip on the online dating scene, OkCupid, capitalizes first and makes a glorious stand against the Mozilla browser because of a 6 year old donation. The media puts them on every front page, highlighting their commitment to LGBT rights and providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising.

So what do I get out of this? The board saw a win-win, if he can weather the storm of the Prop 8 fiasco then they get one of the most technically competent CEOs available, otherwise, they push him out and get a lot of visibility for doing so (and maybe more converts).

OkCupid was smart to capitalize, and Eich, whom I disagree with, gets the hammer.

I think Howard Stern was right, if you're planning on leading a public company, keep your mouth shut and be everybody's best friend.

So he supported Proposition 8 six years ago. How much insight does that really give us into the scope of his character? How many CEOs have done much, much more despicable things in their personal and professional lives and faced little to no public criticism for it? You could write a novel on all of the rotten things that Steve Jobs did, but instead he gets praised by the media as the computing messiah, because none of his antics were hot-button political issues. The gay rights community is turning into the very thing they despise. Flame me all you want. This was NOT justice.

I've been firmly pro marriage equality and firmly against Prop 8 and its supporters forever. That said, I think this whole thing is really a shame. Supporting this law was deplorable, I think it's very much like supporting miscegenation laws last century. It's backwards and just shouldn't be a thing.

In On Liberty, JS Mill said something that's stuck with me since my undergrad Philosophy days:

"Those in whose eyes this reticence on the part of heretics is no evil, should consider in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be prevented from spreading, do not disappear."

However, we've won. The tide has turned and mainstream opinion is on our side. Assuming that's undisputed, we can't just browbeat and boycott people who still disagree. We should engage and accept them. Unless he's actually oppressing anyone, Eich deserves our respect and engagement. It's in our best interest if we ever want to leave the kinds of views he's expressed behind us. A "fair and thorough discussion" of the views supporting Prop 8 may seem downright silly to those who don't hold that view, but if we don't have it, we'll keep this nasty view around for a lot longer than if we do.

Further, I think people have been comfortable dismissing Eich and wanting him to leave simply because they don't want to acknowledge that someone who's contributed so much could have views they find so deplorable. Again, without supporting his views at all, I think he and those who oppose him both deserve more respect than they've received.

You must stop using Javascript or you will be labels as fascists, heterophobes and hypocrites. After all, the man you demonized invented Javascript. He probably contributed more to the internet that you know and love than any living gay person or gay rights supporter. So if you are truly principled and not just a bunch of blind hypocrites and bigots, you all need to get off the javascript enabled internet immediately.

Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?

When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?

While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.